About your Search

20130101
20130131
STATION
CSPAN2 43
LANGUAGE
English 43
Search Results 0 to 42 of about 43 (some duplicates have been removed)
down the iron curtain and changing the entry into the eu of those countries that lost so many of their use to communism. and contained in this history is the crucial point about britain, about our national character, about our attitude to europe. britain is characterized not just by its independence but above all, by its openness. we have always been a country that reaches out that turns its face to the world that leads the charge in the fight for free trade and against protectionism. this is britain today, as it's always been. independent, yes, but open, too. i never want us to pull up the drawbridge and retreat from the world. i am not a british isolationist. but i do want a better deal for britain. but not just a better deal for britain. i want a better deal for europe, too. so i speak as a british prime minister with a positive vision for the future of the european union. a future in which britain wants, and should want, to play a committed and active part. now, some might then ask, why raise fundamental questions about the future of europe when europe is already in the mi
's freedom we paid our parts for the iron curtain and champ named into the e.u. of those countries that lost so many figures to communists. contained in this history is a crucial point about britain, our natural character, our attitude to europe. britain is characterized, but above all by his openness. we've always been a country that reaches out that leads the charge in the fight for free trade and against protectionism. as today as it's always been. independent, yes, but open to. i never want us to put it to drawbridge and retreat from the world. i'm not a british isolationist, but i want a better deal for britain. i wanted better deal if the fantasy british prime minister for the future of the european union. a future in which wants and should want to play committed an active part. now some might then ask, why raise fundamental questions about the future of europe when europe is already in the midst to be deep crisis. why raise questions about britain's role would support in britain is already so did. there are always choices that they don't raise the difficult questions, but it is essent
of a couple in the last year to syria when the e.u.'s embargo changed, the provisions of that changed and so, i think those are advantages. >> thank you. >> mike gates. >> can you confirm in the case of an agreement between the u.k. and another government perhaps some kind of defense cooperation that doesn't have the same status as the, where we are talking about restrictions or controls on the arms exports that are purchased from british companies or exported from this country? in other words, if the mod decides to transfer equipment to another state that wouldn't be subjected to the same criteria as would apply with regards to the armed export regime? . . >> if you have further information; that would be helpful. okay. that's fine. can i ask you about the review as regards the workload that you referred to for ministers, the number of items for consideration: you said thorough overseeing of ministers went up 235 this year compared to 153 last year and 39 in the previous year before your middle east and north africa review. >> right. >> this is presumably dealt with by the human rights sect
%, the transport budget by 15% and the police budget by 20%, how can we even be giving up on a cut in the e.u. budget before the negotiations have begun? >> we have to make cuts in budgets, because we're dealing with a record debt and deficit. but if he wants to talk about consistency, perhaps he can explain why his own members of the european parliament voted against the budget freeze that we achieved last year? perhaps he can explain why the socialist group in the european parliament that he's such a proud member of are calling not for an increase in the budget, not for a freeze in the budget, but for a 200 billion euro increase in the budget? and while they're at it, they want to get rid of the rest of the british rebate. is that his policy? >> the reality is this: he can't convince anyone on europe. last year he announced out of the december negotiations with a veto and the agreement went ahead anyway. you've thrown in the towel even before these negotiations have begun. he can't convince european leaders, he can't even convince his own back benchers. he is weak abroad, he is weak at home
there was we should undertake serious discussions between the u.s. and the e.u. at the same time, i think we need to be realistic. i resent the ohio over 10 years ago and i think there were unnecessarily optimistic views about how quickly it could be done and how uncomplicated it was and it turned out that caution was the better part of judgment. the e.u. has immense regulatory issues and they think they would have to be willing, essentially, to open up their markets and not use various procedures to try to safeguard their market. so i favor proceeding, but with an understanding that there are immense issues to be looked at. and it's not going to have been very, very quickly. but i'm in favor of starting it. [inaudible] >> -- which is fancy language for regulations. for now, whether we're going to allow european meat that might be contaminated with mad cow disease and they have the same concern. inevitably out of that will be a reconfiguration of the safety net on both sides of the atlantic. is that a troubling prospect to you? do you see some opportunities to really streamline the way the t
airways that we should undertake serious discussions between the u.s. and the e.u. at the same time, i think we need to be realistic. how is it to hot, over 10 years ago and i think they were unnecessarily optimistic views about how quickly it could be done and how uncomplicated it was ended turned out that caution was the better part of judgment. the e.u. has events regulatory issues and i think it would have to be willing to essentially to open up their markets and not use various procedures to try to safeguard their market. so i favor receiving, but with an understanding that their argument issues to be looked at. and it's not going to have been very, very quickly, but i'm in favor of starting it. i do my >> just simply fancy language for regulation. and now, whether we're going to allow european meat that may be contaminated with mad cow disease and they have the same concern. inevitably out of apple, reconfiguration of the regulatory safety net on both sides of the atlantic. is that a charming prospect to you? or d.c. opportunities to really kind of streamlined related to the econ
partnership, intergovernmental cooperation destroys responsibility and accountability. look at the e.u. to the e.u. destroy greece or decrease destroy the e.u.? is probably does, but you can't tell them they'll blame each other. the founders didn't need the e.u. to save his dangerous. all this arises for intergovernmental cooperation and common during. the founders didn't need the e.u. because they have the example comintern for them, the articles of confederation. there is a constitution that prohibits this and makes it very, very difficult in any event. the second objection to justice breyer or rather the objection to a second party is feds want to send sworn off officers. let them try. it seems already suggested, they can't enable and if they do, they will have to pay the fiscal and critical praise. so in a weird way, it would be great if we have fbi agents in santa clara breaking down the doors of pot smokers. i will. i will tell people more but the federal government than 50 papers from the cato institute. [laughter] >> one minus point and then i will end. this is a force of the a
, it is now the e.u. state that is coming up to the first of march deadline of the current e.u. whether they will want to amend that in any way. it could be amended to apply to the regime and not to the opposition forces but it could be amended in many other ways. as a that would require the agreement of all of the states. >> in the syrian opposition i'm interested to know if that could be linked but not lethal. how serious is this embargo and is it possible for example the communications equipment that could be used in conjunction with turkey and some other countries to the elements in your possession. >> well, it's not military. it's certainly not legal. the systems so far include some things like the deployment on the stabilization defense to work with the opposition on the future plans and how they are getting help for people's basic needs and oppositions and training the citizens. we are providing each other actable material in the kits and generators to help civilians in opposition the communications equipment to help activists overcome the communications, blackouts, blockages pro
who engage in scare will tell you that our party will come to power, rip up our agreement with the e.u. and take our country out of the eurozone break all of greece's ties with the culture civilized west and turn greece to a new north korea. my dear friends, this is the worst form of scare. my party doesn't want any of these things. we were always and will continue to be a european party. the fact we believe that europe is lost the road, in that it is imposing inhuman policies on it's very people can be considered antieuropean. of our policies have to match the best interest of the people of europe if we were to be considering ourself proeuropean. and the fact that europe is our common home and we have to protect it from the great depression that is spreading and threatening not only use europeans but the entire world economy we want to stop the splintering of europe. that's why we're against today's austerity policies. that's why we are standing against today's european us a austerity policies. i want to say it plainly, when it comes in to power. in greece wealth have one -- we'll hav
chancellor merkel certainly wanted to keep in the e.u. because they never went into the eurozone. but they are an active member of the e.u.. she wants to keep them in. >> time is getting a little tight here, so let's go to two questions very quickly. right here and then right over here. >> do you think it would enhance economic opportunities in asia if we had more asian members of congress? >> that's an interesting thought. of course, some very senior members of congress, in fact, the senior senator just died who, inouye, who had tremendous clout there. and you're seeing more and or more asian members elected, male and female. and i think you'll continue to see that. you know -- >> who else -- [inaudible] >> well, you have, i think there are several. you have one who's a korean, i think you have one korean-american, and i think you'll see more going forward because you've got a lot of asian americans who are mayors, you know, in major cities. and i think that the answer is i think would be very helpful to have more asian-americans as members of congress. and, of course, you had g
was the better part of judgment. the eu has immense regulatory issues, and i think that they would have to be willing to essentially open up the markets and not use various procedures to try to safeguard the market. so i favor proceeding, but with an understanding that there are immense issues to be looked at. and it's not going to happen very quickly. but i am in favor of starting it. >> talking about nontariff trade, it is fancy language for regulations. whether we will allow european beef that could be contaminated with mad cow disease. inevitably out of that, there will come a reconfiguration of the safety net of the regulatory safety net on both sides. is that a troubling prospect you? dc some opportunities to streamline the way the two economies govern themselves? >> we have dealt with the issues with safeguarding other countries. we did that in the negotiations with colombia. we did that in negotiations with panama. if any two entities can resolve those issues, it is the eu and the united states. essentially, what the eu has been doing, in my judgment, to use regulatory provision
by the proposal in today's conservative report to opt out of the eu law. will be prime minister rule out this opt out today? >> what this government has done, explain to him at the beginning of prime minister's question is massively help the women through the single tear pension. i look very carefully at the proposal he mentioned and i will write to him. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i know my right honorable friend is aware of the extreme study suffered in the west country in november and december of last year, impacting many homes and businesses but also sweeping away the rail link between the west country and london leaving us cut off for several days. which he ushered our government will take every step necessary to improve the resilience of this vital rail link so we never get cut off a give? >> i think my honorable friend is right to raise this issue. i'm well aware of how bad the
.s. and e.u. at the same time, i think we need to be realistic. i was -- [inaudible] what was that? over ten years ago, and i think there were unnecessarily optimistic views about how quickly it could be done and uncomplicated it was. it turned out that caution was better part of judgment. i think they would have to be willing essentially to open up the markets and not use various procedures to try to safeguard their market. so i favor proceedings, but with an understanding that there are immense issues to be looked at. and it's not going happen very, very quickly. i'm in favor of starting it. [inaudible] it's fancy language for -- regulations. whether allow european -- to you see opportunities to streamline the way the two economies governor themselves? >> it's the latter. let me put it this way. we have dealt with the issues regarding safeguards, safeguards and others with ore countries. we did that in negotiation with colombia. we did that in negotiations with panama. if any two entities resolve those issues, it's the e.u. and united states. essentially what the e.u. has been doing, in my
administration via the ftc keep implementing companies' privacy 30eu8s as de facto regulations. the companies will have to keep to their word, essentially, on privacy. and as we have seen with companies like facebook and inthat gram, when they change their word, there are enough people using them, and we see a public b backlash, and then we see the companies often have to buckle and backtrack on some of these changes. that has moved much quicker than any regulation could. so for now, i think, it's going to be status quo. we're going to keep having ?epts that are going to -- incidents that are going to outrage the public, but i really don't think washington moves quickly enough to respond to some of these concerns. >> guest: well, i would say do not track there's been these sort of voluntary talks. big event at the white house, the advertising industry promised to come to the table and work this out, and that didn't happen. so there were law makers and regulators including chairman leibowitz at the ftc who have been saying, well, we're going to give the industry a chance to try this on its own
consult assistants. >> is it the '60s? '0*eu7 z? >> yes. i used their report because of the reports they did. they were very good reports and some of the historical research that i did. so i was very much aware of them. finally, they -- by the time that roe v. wade was decided if i would write something as a history abortion rights for them. and how that plays out and what the history back to england and so on. and i did a report for them. >> what is your history? where are you from. >> nashville, tennessee. i group in nashville and my family and relatives are all still there. i went to pearl high school, and i went to howard university. i graduated and went to the university of michigan. >> law school? >> first the history department write got a ph.d. then i went law school. i wanted to do legal history. those days you had to get both degrees. you couldn't get them at the same time. now you can. i had to do one then the other. then . >> did you come north to graduate school on purpose? >> i came to howard, yes, i came on purpose. absolutely. >> why? >> i went to segregated schools
between the u.s. and the e.u.. at the same time, i think we need to be realistic. i was at doha -- what was that, over ten years ago? and i think there were unnecessarily optimistic views about how quickly it could be done and how uncomplicated it was. and it turned out that caution was the better part of judgment. the e.u. has immense regulatory issues, and i think they would have to be willing, essentially, to open up their markets and not use various procedures to try to safeguard their market. so, um, i favor proceeding but with an understanding that there are immense issues to be, to be looked at. and it's not going to happen very, very quickly. but i'm in fave of starting it -- i'm in favor of starting it. >> [inaudible] nontariff trade barriers which is just simply fancy language for, you know -- >> exactly. >> -- for regulations, you know, whether we're going to allow european feeds that might be con -- needs that might be contaminated with mad cow disease, and they have the same concerns. inevitably out of that is going to come a reconfiguration of the regulatory safety net on
to hopkinson said this water tastes funny and hopkins said of course it does, it's got a whiskey in it. its e.u. a judge of water. last night and then, you know, he would do these things like -- off in odd note to winston churchill essay deerwood then, happy for dave. how old are you anyway? that's the kind of guy he was. there is another dinner at claridge is in the west end of london and period was hosted by the leaders of the british press, the publishers, the editors, the distinguished writers. churchill wasn't there. hopkins was the guest of honor. and so that journalists would do the lake and what he said that he was asked to make some after dinner remarks and he went around the table, speaking softly, looking at a set, shiny and 86. he gave them the sons that while america was not yet in the war, she was marching to save them in the british old. and then one of the journalists wrote, we are happy then all. her courage and confidence have been stimulated by a contact, which shakespearean henry the fifth had a phrase, a little touch of harry mma. the hopkins touches not know, nor was it la
and then the eu, arms embargo in 2004, a flood of weaponry came into libya. most of it was over a billion dollars, which in absolute terms may not be that great but relative to what was there before and what the purpose is, what it was used for, created, i was an unfair playing field. you couldn't say that we were, your, this was not a usual issue a source we were concerned. that process, and i argue, as i argue in the book, was very much tied to the whole issue of ask not, putting accountability in place for, you know, what we would get, what gadhafi would not do as a result of the agreements that were signed with him. a lot of people, i think that weaponry, again, small arms, surveillance equipment, all of the sort of things you'd need to put down a popular revolt was put in the hands of the regime, essentially due to complicity and lack of attention by parties in the west. so that's one, one thing. as far as what president, civil war, you know, civil wars are, you know, that's a key question, and i don't -- the preponderance come in, the rebels themselves managed to present a case that ask for
of universities, law schools, international lawyers, ngos. everybody who works for the e.u. and so, my question would be a little more specific. what is the social base for the sovereignty movement and particularly, what are the elites in america, for example, that can be mobilized in order to resist and assert his father in view? >> i suppose the social base in places such as face and think tanks and activist. was probably the first effort of the movement back in the 1950s, which was promoted, the main promoter in 1855 is the american bar association, which was leading defender and they were close to senator john bricker of ohio, who introduced this amendment that's really complicated, but basically treaties could not trumpet and any treaties not self-executing but we can't congress and pass a lot implementing executive orders. so i've given toxic groups around the country. because activists are counteracted this or interested in american sovereignty on a wide range of issues, people who are conservative on agenda 21 and environmental issues and think there's an overreach by global environment
for the volcker rule set forth by the u.k. independent commission on banking and e.u. indeed, sir john vickers, chairman of the independent commission has already criticized the u.k. coalition government for backing away from his original proposal. while the european commission's summarize -- in a charmingly understated fashion stating in general in banks welcome the group analysis but argue that a compelling case for mandatory space of trading activity hasn't been made. they felt it wasn't back by the required evidence and there was a need for a thorough impact assessment. with all due respect, to my friend in the european financial regulatory community, when a regulatory proposal is viewed within the e.u. as being too harsh on the financial industry i think it's a clear sign it's time take a step back and reevaluate. regardless of what happens with respect to the vickers or like end proposals, even if all of the most allegations wall street's harshest critics are set -- even if they act out of self-interest. the financial institutions know that the volcker rule is not going away. as such, th
proposals set forth by the u.k. independent commission on banking and the e.u.'s likennen group. indeed, sir john vickers, chairman of the independent commission, has already criticized the u.k. coalition government from backing away from his original proposal while the european commission's recent report summarizing the responses received to the likennen report acknowledges the widespread opposition to the proposal in a charmingly understated fashion, stating: in general banks welcome the group's analysis but argue that a compelling case for mandatory separation of trading activities hasn't been made. they felt the proposal wasn't backed by the required evidence and that there was a need for a thorough impact assessment. with all due respect to my friends in the european financial regulatory community, when a regulatory proposal is viewed within the e.u. as being too harsh on a financial industry and harmful to markets, i think it's a clear sign that it's time to take a step back and reevaluate. regardless of what happens with respect to the vickers or likennen proposals, even if all of the
: is there objection? so ordered. mr. whitehouse: and may i ask for -- i it may go over 10 minutes -- so let me 15eu9 minutes, although probably not that long. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. white house whoims a going twhie house whoims a going t mr. whitehouse: the measure is now over in the house and the predecessor and the senator from california both expressed their hope and confidence that the house will act, given the dysfunction of the house and its republican leadership, i'm perhaps a little bit more cautious than they are about this. i remember that we did a very good bipartisan highway bill here. it passed wit with an enormous e -- 70-some, if i remember correctly -- and went over to the house. they couldn't even pass a highway bill. they had no bill at all. they got so snarled up, that finally they passed a bill that did nothing but appoint conferees to go and argue about howour bill, but they couldn't bring a bill of their own into conference. we worked very hard on a farm bill here, it was a bipartisan farm bill. senator stabenow was particularly energetic in that
. that says something about academia and the world. did you see the poster the e.u.? showing all the symbols of europe? it showed a cross, star of david, crescent and so on, and a hammer and cycle. there was a bit -- there's an outcry from the lit wanians, and why aren't we in the west sympathetic enough to the sufferers, the persecutors under communism to subject ourselves? why leave it to these? but there it was. i'm fairly relaxed about the communism symbols. you see a guy with a cccp sweatshirt and his trinkets. i did a study of this, a simple magazine piece, and, you know, they are not the worst. people say it's proof we won and can mock it. it's just kind of funny. you don't see swastikas and people saying, oh, relax, it's just a t-shirt. as was pointed out, there was just one good picture taken in his life, looks like a movie star in the picture, the cheekbones just right, but other pictures, not all that much, really, honestly. let me -- this is all regarding chambers, really, but he was a witness and a truth teller e and it was really, really hard for him to fore sake, not pop pew l
and something about the world. did you see this poster from the e.u. showing all of the symbols of the euro? it showed a cross, star of david and so on and a hammer and sickle. there is a bit of an outcry from the lithuanians. and i ask why does it take the lithuanians, why aren't we in the west sympathetic enough to the persecuted under communism to object ourselves? white -- why would we leave it to them? i am relaxed about these symbols. we see a guy what they cccp with hammers and sickles and i once did a study on this on a simple magazine piece and some people say it's proof. it's kind of funny. you know, you don't see the pictures on t-shirts. it's just a t-shirt. as andrew daniels points out if we only took one good picture in this life he looks like a moon star and he got his cheekbones just right but it wasn't all that much, honestly. this is all regarding chambers, but he was a witness and a truth teller and it was really hard for him to forsake not popular approval but the approval of the people that mattered was colleagues and journalism and what we might call the liberal establ
eus -- this is 50 minutes. >> nancy ann depaul. how are you, welcome. >> and dr. shirley ann jackson. >> and andrea mitchell. who is probably been working since 5:00 this morning, too. >> i bet you every single person here has been up since 5:00. >> block i saw the dress andrea had on, and i thought -- >> that was clever. you're not a rhodes scholar for thing. >> 4:30 wakeup for the morning joe. >> oh, my gun. what time do you get up? >> 4:30 to 5:00. >> i'm the late raiser, 5:00 to 5:30. >> how late do you work straight through? typically. i guess every day is different. >> when you're doing the "today" program you have to be the last one out at night to make sure you have the overnight. especially secretary clinton was traveling because there were late and early developments as well. so i'm there until 10:00 or 11:00, and i can go out and get michigan to eat and come back. >> for the two people in america who don't know andrea mitchell, i want to introduce her. incomes' chief foreign affairs correspondence. one of the most respected and hardest working journalist in america and we'
the world. did you see this poster from the e.u.? showing all the symbols of europe? it showed a cross, the star of david and the muslim crescent and so on and the hammer and sickle. there is an outcry from the lithuanians and i asked why does it take the lithuanians ,-com,-com ma why aren't we in the west sympathetic enough to sufferers persecuted under communism to object ourselves? why leave it to these folks but there it was. i am fairly relaxed about these common symbols. if you see a guy with the ccc piece white shirt and you see these trinkets and hammers and sickles and so on. i once did a study of this, simple magazine piece, and some people say it's proof that we weren't that we can mock that. is just kind of funny. you don't see swastikas and he don't see pictures of goering on t-shirts and you don't have people say it's just a t-shirt. daniels points out che guevara only took one good picture in his life. he looks like a movie star in the picture. he got his cheekbones just right but other pictures he wasn't that much really, honestly. this is all regarded in chambers reall
a positive or more negatively? >> pakistan sees a positive role for the eu, united states, other organizations, international organizations. but what is the role that nader sees for itself? is it military when we talk about nato? or is it economic? or is it political? i think nato doesn't appear to where so many hats. basically, when we talk about nato we're talking about military. well, that i think has already been discussed. but certainly the eu, other organizations, the united states, really has very important political role, economic role. i think afghanistan -- i think nader can also help support the iran army to do a better job with its resources. so we are in favor of that, this kind of role. there was one mentioned about india and transatlantic trade comments it appeared that also comes -- there are so may things that can be done if only the conflicts situation gets resolved, and also in the border area with pakistan. >> ambassador jawad, nato's will? >> yes, particularly i think your question was on nato's role through northern afghanistan. i think this is a key importa
weeks s. 250eu78. when one side knows that with 41 votes they can absolutely trash can something, why should they compromise? if they've got the 41 votes. again, i want to emphasize another act about my proposal. republicans have stated that filibuster are necessary because democrats increasingly employ procedural mar maneuvers to pret them from offering amendments. i offered guarantee rights to offer amendments filed in advance of a cloture vote so everyone knows what's coming, the right -- the inherent right of the minority to offer those raiments. -- amendments. unfortunately, of course, every republican voted against my proposal and that is because republicans currently want the best of both worlds; the right to offer nongermane amendments and the right to obstruct. this doesn't make sense. again, no one should be fooled. the fact is that the radicals who now hold sway in the republican party are not concerned with make the government or senate function better. that's why the current use of the filibuster has nothing to do with ensuring minority rights to debate or the right to am
states at 1.4, which means for every dollar you cut, you ha you had e lose $1 340eu in gross domestic product. goildman sax, which is not exactly a left-wing outfit has put it close to 1.5. cut $1, lose $1.50 in gross domestic product. economists at the the university of california have found that during recessions -- and it is important -- during recessions, the fiscal multiplier in developed countries generally falls between 1.5 and 2. that complicated economic gobbledygook boils down to this: $1 in reduced government spending will reduce gross domestic product by more than $1 -- by $1 340eu or $1.70 or whatever the multiplier is, and damages the economy without accomplishing the intended deficit reduction. other countries teame attemptedt austerity -- spain, greece, and portugal particularly have persistent double-dynel i think unemployment -- double-digit unemployment, over 126% i 26% in and greece, and they have anemic or negative economic growth rates. contrast that with the u.s. where a more balanced approach to the economic crisis yielded an unemployment rate that is still far
eu9 days. i -- every 90 days. i think the appropriators of the house and senate would come together. but every 90 days there would be an additional 1% until the appropriations bills or the year-long resolution has been enacted. these are designinged to keep both sides at the bargaining table. they aren't so small as to be irrelevant, but they're not so large as to cut 234eu programs. priorities of both republicans and democrats would be subject to the same across-the-board cuts. and both parties therefore would have an incentive to come to an agreement that fully funds priority programs and reduces funding for lower priorities. this bipartisan amendment may not be each lawmaker's idea of perfect. it is not mine smed i would rather get all the appropriations bills done. but that's not what's happening. but we should all agree that it improves upon the current situation where we bounce from crisis to crisis, worried about government shutdowns as well as to rush bills to avoid shutdowns much the american people want us to complete our work in a logical way. and this amendment helps us
, intergovernmental cooperation destroys responsibility and accountability. look at the e.u.. did the e.u. destroy greece, or did greece destroy the e.u.? it's probably both, but you can't tell, and they all blame each other. and the founders didn't need the e.u. to see these dangers. all of this arises from intergovernmental cooperation and commandeering. the founders didn't need the e.u. because they have the example of commandeering in front of them. it was the articles of confederation. and so they wrote a constitution that prohibits this and makes it very, very difficult in any event. the second objection to justice breyer or, rather, the objection to his second point is, well, if the feds want to send swarms of officers, let them try. as angela already suggested, they can't, and they won't, and if they do, they will have to pay the fiscal and political price. so i think in a weird way it would actually be great if we had fbi agents in santa clara breaking down the doors of gravely-ill pot smokers. that'll tell people more about the federal government than 15 papers from the cato institute. [
proposal, set forth by the uk independent commission on banking and the eu's group. sir john vickers, chairman of the independent commission, has argued criticized the coalition government and the backing away from his original proposal. while the european commission's recent report summarizes the responses received and it acknowledges the widespread opposition of a proposal in a determinedly understated action. it argues that a compelling case for mandatory separation of trading activities hasn't been made. they felt that the proposal is not backed by the required evidence and that there was a need for thorough impact assessment. with all due respect my to my friends in the european financial regulatory community, what a regulatory proposal is used within the eu, considered too harsh on the financial industry and harmful to markets, it's a clear sign that it's time to take a step back and reevaluate. regardless of what happens respect to the proposals, even if all of the most vitriolic allegations set forth are true, even if our financial giants act solely and ruthlessly out of self
that he felt that american television programming certainly appear in the '70 z, '70s, '0eu89d had a positive event demonstrating american vawms to the world. how do you think the world outside the united states show "24" and "homeland" and what effect do you think -- have you heard anything at all? >> yeah. "24" and "homeland" are extraordinarily popular not just in germany and in the u.k. but also in jordon, turkey, and places you, you know, frankly "24" is a huge knit iran. it's being beamed in illegally by i can't remember the name. >> you're not getting paid for it. >> right. i'm not getting paid for it, no. >> but it's smuggled in a lot. yeah. we heard it from -- [inaudible] >> >> yeah. >> and the actor who plays a character is persian and has a lot of connections in iran and he's been tracking . >> butt thing . >> tracking "homeland" in iran. >> and surprise stunningly popular. statement i have read a few criticisms of the show, and again, to the extend we sort of, i think, make piss people off on every side of the aisle and embraced too. tvs a good thing. i think one thing
the court of justice of the e.u. is hindering progress by bringing into question the validity of the patient protecting research. will the prime minister do what he can to clear this blockage on behalf of millions of people in this country who suffer long-term medical conditions? >> my hon. friend makes an extremely serious point and i will look closely at it because it is a competitive advantage we have in this country that we took difficult decisions about stem cell research. is important that we continue to lead in that area not only as he says for economic and scientific reasons but because we want to make sure long-term conditions, debilitating conditions, children with a disability and other concerns that we crack those problems for the future and without that level of research i don't believe we will. i will get what he says and write to him after. >> is the prime minister proud of the growth of super pacs across this country including my own constituency and if not, will he? >> i am proud of the fact that in this country there are a million more people in work than there were when i
the sequester take effect? what is your understanding? >> the number is 9 eu7 with the -- 9874 with the sequester. it's sticking to that number letting the sequester take effect or replacing the, you know, the cuts and military and other programs. with other cuts that cut us to 974. it's stick to the 974 number, which i believe was the roc number last year in our budget. if we can get the democrats to agree with us doing the reform or manned story programs, we're willing to shift some of that to mandatory. >> and look, i would be elated to see a movement to the mandatory. if you look at the map, the mandatory what consume us as a people. if came to you today and said $100 savings in discretionary or $100 in mandatory? you take the mandatory. because it has a very powerful multiplier to effect future. if you have any modifications to the sequester, only on the decision their side, then the replacement cuts have to happen in the same time period. one of the problems we've had is when replacement cuts are suggested, it's they are spread out over five years or ten years rather than
and to the e.u., and i would just urge you that further progress in that area is going to continue to require american leadership, and i hope that we will continue to work in the region to ensure that they continue to make progress. >> we will, senator. and i just want to thank you for your leadership of the subcommittee. you've been absolutely terrific and i look forward to working with you. thanks. >> senator johnson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. senator, i appreciate your thoughtful opening statement and your thoughtful response to these questions. i have a great deal of respect for your level of experience, your knowledge in these areas and i would have enjoyed working with you as a member of the committee. i'm going to enjoy working with you as the secretary of state and i mean that in all sincerity. i want to have a close working relationship. as used in your opening statement, these are complex times. you know, i sort of grew up hoping that that maximum of politics at the water's edge was actually true. i'm not sure it ever was, but i think it's something we can aspire to. i truly think
this issue, but think about the health care system that would work for the e.u. but the closer model in the health care system that works for the netherlands. that's a thinking one of our larger state, adopting it. so it is recognizing we've taken one step in terms of expanding coverage. we are still struggling with how to get a more efficient outcome orient to health care system and it's going to take a lot of changes over the next decade or two decades. we've been having these discussions in medicare since its inception, which is now roughly 50 years. this is not going to get salt because one piece of legislation was passed. health care reform 1.0. hang on, the rest is coming the next decade or two. >> dr. ginsberg. >> in our history we've had in this country that cannot health systems abroad because of ideology. msp terrible if it's not ours. i think what is happening is we've identified a whole range of more technical issues come you know, how to pay organizations, individual providers, how to engage patients that can cross boards. i think that there's an opening to learn more fr
that everybody's responsible for success and, of course, for 25eu8 -- for failure as well. >> i like to remind people that as brilliant as the uav drone system is, at the end of the day, there has to be someone who tells it where to fly which in many cases, not all cases, is usually a human source. in the hunt for zarqawi, it's clear that the debriefing of a detainee was vitally important to the outcome. and we know from certain movies floating around now that detainee interrogation is a very important issue. and, of course, that raises the question of how you interrogate detainees. in the book you are about as clear as anyone i've ever seen. you say torture is, quote, self-defeating. you describe the very elaborate steps you took to make sure that any detainee in your chain of command was not abused and was housed in a facility of that have, well, it wasn't a five-star hilton, but it was an appropriate facility. and at one point you said to your troops that anyone who was involved in detainee abuse would be court-martialed and expels from the task force. expelled from the task force. why did
about it. the laws differ in europe and in the u.s. the european process is a finding sort of at the eu level, and we've been under investigation for almost two years by the commissioner they are and his staff. and during this period, they get comments from everybody and we give them literally millions of documents. we have not come and we're busy negotiating with them. we don't think we violated any european laws, but we're happy to have a conversation and we're sort of now waiting on what they decide to do. we have been negotiating back and forth, and they announced that publicly. in the united states, the law is similar but different in the way it is applied to in our case the government decided to have the federal trade commission look at this and similar investigations are underway. there's a similar hearing. i testified at the hearings but again, i don't see the consumer arm under section two, and we've asked the government to come back and give us examples of things which are violation of law. we haven't seen that yet. we are also in negotiations with them. so i'll would say we t
enlarging the stability in europe itself by enlarging our institution, the eu or nato. what's happened to that agenda? is a no longer a part of the democratic countries? and if the answer is was so care about -- are whether georgia can become more stable, how do we get smarter about it? it isn't obvious our institutions hold the same if you used to hold five or six years ago. it isn't obvious that comes like ukraine had to stay democratizing instinct, the country of central europe had 10 years ago. so what, if anything, would you do different to make sure part of your democratic in state? >> i'd like to say quickly, i think some countries have taken a bit of an appetite suppressant when he came to their ambitions of being part of the european union, for example. >> but they are democratic. >> but they are democratic. but there also has to be benefit that flows. i think that is very much a part of the typos as to whether people are going to pursue being part of a larger union, being part of an obsession like nato. there has to be some apparent benefit in so doing. you know, the ability
. -- that our current immigration system is not working effectively, indeed is 235eu8ing 0en 00 -- indeed is failing ton a daily basis cannot be denied. it needs to be fixed. it is a challenge for us to do so and will not be easy. i would, however, warn my colleagues that a framework is not a bill. and in 2006 and 2007 with the full support of the republican president of the united states, a bipartisan committee announced with great confidence that they had a plan that was going to fix our immigration system and we were all just going to line upped and vote for it much the masters of the universe had decided -- they'd meat in secret, they had all the special interest groups gather and they had worked out a plan that was going to change our immigration system for the better and we should all be most grateful. it came up with 2006, it did not pass. it came back again in 2007 with even more emphasis, and it failed coul loss -- and it failed colossally. it did not do it what they said it would do. it did not end the illegality. it did not set forth a proper principle of immigration for amer
and should 34r5eu a role in incentivizing that process and ensuring that election improvements are made to last. it can help states move forward in using available technology and ensure states do a better job at enforcing laws that are already on the books. the national voter registration act commonly known as the motor voter law requires states to allow voters to register when they renew their license at the dmv or other governmental agencies. yet there are allegations that some states aren't fulfilling their obligations under this act. blue states, red states, purple states all across the country in talking with elections administrators from around the country it's clear to me that compliance with existing law is not complete. so we have to do more to ensure voters are afforded the rights given to them under current law and that state agencies are doing what's required to simplify the registration process, to maintain uniform an nondiscriminatory voartd rolls and to provide wide straight ahead -- widespread registration opportunities. enforcing existing laws is part of the conclusion
Search Results 0 to 42 of about 43 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)